0

SOFTWARE RELEASE NOTICE

| 1. SRN Number: MGFE-SRN-218

2. Project Title: TSPA & Technical Integration/Assistance

|Project No. 20-5708-761

3. SRN Title: UDEC Version 3.1

4. Originator/Requestor: Bruce Mabrito

|Date: 04/17/2000

5. Summary of Actions

Release of new software

Release of modified software: Software Upgrade for Acquired Code

Enhancements made

Corrections made

Change of access software

Software Retirement
6. Persons Authorized Access
Read Only/Read-Write

Name
Goodluck Ofoegbu
Simon Hsiung
Amit Ghosh
Rui Chen
Asad Chowdhury
Bis Dasgupta
7. Element Manager Approval:

RO
RO
RO
RW
RO
RO
\

Addition/Change/Delete

Addition
Date:

8. Remarks:
On January 7,1997, Scientific & Engineering Software UDEC V3.0 was placed
under version control at the CNWRA in the SCCS system.
On April 18,1999, UDEC 3.0 was replaced by UDEC 3.1.

CNWRA Form TOP-6 (05/98)

SOFTWARE SUMMARY FORM

01. Summary Date:

04/17/2000

02. Summary prepared by (Name and phone)

Rui Chen, (210) 522-5152

04. Software Date:

03/2000

05. Short Title:

UDEC, Version 3.1

03. Summary Action:

Required Code Upgrade

07. Internal Software ID:

001-000

06. Software Title:

Universal Distinct Element Code, Version 3.1
08. Software Type:

09. Processing Mode:

o Automated Data System

Cl Interactive

* Computer Program

in

n Subroutine/Module

* Combination

Batch

11. Submitting Organization and Address:

ITASCA Consulting Group, Inc.
Thresher Square East
708 South Third Street, Suite 310
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414

10. APPLICATION AREA

a. General:
i1 Auxiliary Analyses
* Scientific/Engineering
Cl Total System PA
i Other
1i Subsystem PA
b. Specific:

12. Technical Contact(s) and Phone:

Mark Christianson (612) 371-4711

13. Software Application:

The distinct element method is a recognized discontinuum modeling approach for simulating the behavior of
jointed media subjected to quasi-static or dynamic conditions. This program has three distinguishing features
which make it well suited for discontinuum modeling. It covers a range of rock mass strengths and confining
pressures which are encountered in situ.
14. Computer Platform
Windows NT
18. Computer Memory
Requirements:
Minimum 24 megabytes

15. Computer Operating

System:
DOS

16. Programming
Language(s):
FORTRAN 77

17. Number of Source

Program Statements:
N/A

19. Tape Drives:

20. Disk/Drum Units:

21. Graphics:
VGA Monitor

N/A

22. Other Operational Requirements:

N/A

24. Documentation Availability:

23. Software Availability:

* Available

cl Limited

N/A

in

In-House ONLY

* Available

-/

CNWRA Fonr TOP-4-1

n Inadequate

in

In-House ONLY

Software Validation Test Plan

SOFTWARE VALIDATION TEST PLAN

FOR THE UNIVERSAL DISTINCT ELEMENT
CODE (UDEC)
VERSION 3.1

May 2002

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses

San Antonio, Texas

Author

r
Sui-Min Hsiung

Date

Element Manager
(, // 19 1-2- Ot

Asadul H. Chowdhury

-;->-

Date

1.0

Scope of the Validation

The Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC) Version 3.1 (Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 2000) is
an acquired software that is not to be modified and is under configuration control at the Center for
Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses. The UDEC Version 3.1 computer program performs stability
analyses of jointed rock mass. Both static and dynamic analyses for underground openings can be
performed. In conducting a regulatory review of a potential license application for high-level waste
geologic disposal, the UDEC computer code is likelyto be used to assess short-term stability (prior
to permanent closure of the repository) and long-term performance of underground facilities (e.g.,
emplacement drifts, ventilation conduits, and shafts).
Because of the heat generated by the decay of high-level waste, the underground facilities will be
in a heated condition for hundreds of years. On occasion, this high-temperature environment will
be superimposed by seismic events (e.g., earthquakes). The stability of underground openings
during the preclosure period and the potential rockfall from long-term degradation of rock mass and
earthquake shaking after permanent closure are some of the key technical concerns for license
application review.
The UDEC computer program may be used to assist with reviewing the areas discussed in the
previous paragraph. Hence, the validation tests on UDEC Version 3.1 (Itasca Consulting Group,
Inc., 2000) will be limited to examining the capabilities of UDEC in analyzing stabilityof underground
openings under heated and dynamic conditions, more specifically,
*
*
*
*
*

joint normal and shear displacement calculations

wave propagation simulation
ground support performance
temperature prediction
thermal-mechanical calculation.

2.0

Environment

2.1

Software

UDEC Version 3.1 (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., 2000), available to the Centerfor NuclearWaste
Regulatory Analyses, is designed for a desktop personal computer environment. The UDEC
executable file is udec.exe. The validation tests for UDEC Version 3.1 will be performed using the
Microsoft Windows NT operating system Version 4.0 (Build 1381: Service Pack 6). The data input
files will be developed for each test case discussed in Section 6 of this validation plan as
appropriate.
To validate UDEC Version 3.1, analytical solutions, field measurements, and results from another
numerical method will be used to compare with the UDEC model results. The numerical method
used in this validation activities will be the Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) code (Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc., 1996). FLAC is a two-dimensional explicit finite difference code for
engineering mechanics computation and is commercially available. Validation of FLAC will be
subject of separate activities.

2.2

Hardware

The hardware required is an IBM-compatible personal computer. An identification key from Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc. is needed to execute the program. The test results will be presented as text
outputs or graphics. A QMS 3825 printer will be used to process text outputs, and graphics will be
printed using an HP Color LaserJet printer. No other hardware peripherals are needed for
conducting the validation tests.
3.0

Prerequisites

No specific prerequisites are necessary to perform testing activities.

4.0

Assumptions and Constraints

No assumptions and constraints are identified for performing the validation tests.
5.0

Test Cases

Inthis validation plan, seven test cases are proposed. Specifically, Test Case 1is related to cyclic
loading of a specimen with a slipping joint. Test Case 2 studies joint slip intersected by a circular
excavation. Test Case 3 examines shear wave propagation through a jointed continuum. Test
Case 4 concerns the dynamic behavior of a single discontinuity under explosive loading. Test Case
5 relates to heat conduction through a composite wall. Test Case 6 validate cable bolt performance.
Test Case 7 examines the mechanical response of a joint subject to a heat load.
Test Cases 1and 2 are intended to validate the joint behavior modeled in UDEC. Test Cases 3 and
4 are designed to validate wave propagation through jointed media. Test Case 5 examines the
acceptability of thermal conduction algorithm implemented in UDEC. Test Case 6 verifies the
validity of the cable bolt support function, and Test Case 7 validates the thermal-mechanical
algorithm implemented in UDEC.
The first four test cases were used to validate an earlier version of UDEC as part of a 1988-1994
research program supported by the Office of Nuclear Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The results of these test cases were published in the Proceedings of the International
Conference on Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock in 1990 (Brady et al., 1990). The paper
authored by Brady et al. (1990) is attached for reference.
Three of the four test case results are also included in the UDEC Online Manual and associated
documents for Version 3.1 (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., 2000). Test Case 1 is discussed in the
Verification Problems and Example Applications portion of the UDEC Online Manual for Version 3.1,
whereas Test Cases 3 and 4 are discussed in Section 4, Dynamic Analysis-Theory and
Background, of the UDEC Online Manual for Version 3.1.
The results presented in the UDEC Online Manual for Version 3.1 for the three test cases are
comparable to those in the paper prepared by Brady at al. (1990). It is, therefore, determined that
the results of the test cases presented in the paper published by Brady et al. (1990) are adequate
to support this validation effort. No repeat calculations for these three test cases are necessary.
The validation results and conclusions for these three test cases can be found in the attachment.
3

Because Test Case 2 is not included in the UDEC Online Manual, it will be analyzed in this study
(For case description, please refer to the attachment).
Sections 5.1 through 5.3 provide problem descriptions for Test Cases 5, 6, and 7.
5.1

Heat Conduction Through a Composite Wall Test

This test involves heat conduction calculation through a composite wall and comparison of the
UDEC results with known analytical solutions, provided by the code developer. This test simulates
an infinite wall, consisting of two distinct layers, exposed to a condition with high temperature on one
side and low temperature on the other. The wall eventually reaches an equilibrium at a constant
heat flux and temperature distribution. The heat flux is activated in UDEC through thermal
convection coefficients associated with the composite wall and the temperature difference between
the two opposite sides of the wall. The test objective is to validate the thermal analysis component
of UDEC. Analytical solutions to this test case are discussed in the UDEC Online Manual for
Version 3.1 (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., 2000). These results will be compared with the UDEC
results.
5.1.1

Test Input

The input file required for the test is provided by the code developer. This input file includes
calculation of both UDEC modeling results and analytical solution. Consequently, both results can
be presented in one graph with a simple UDEC command.
5.1.2

Test Procedure

The test procedure involves the following steps.

Step 1: Execute UDEC
Step 2: Run the input file at the prompt
Step 3: Set up output device for processing postscript graphic files
Step 4: Produce output plots
5.1.3

Test Results

Because the infinite wall is made of two distinct layers, it is expected that the pattern of temperature
distributions in the two layers should be different depending on the relative contrast of thermal
properties of the two layers. The UDEC results are expected to have a good agreement with those
obtained from the analytical solutions. A difference smaller than 1%is considered to be acceptable
because the analytical problem is a simple one-dimensional one.
5.2

Grouted Cable Anchor Pullout Test

This test involves applying an axial force on a cable fully grouted in an elastic rock block. This test
models a typical pullout test performed in the field on a small segment of grouted cables. Itshould
4

be noted that a pullout test is the common method for determining cable deformation and strength
properties. This simpletest case is intended tovalidatethe cable model in UDEC by comparing its
force-displacement curve with that measured in the field. The field measurements are provided in
Volume IV: Verification Problems and Example Applications of the User Manual of the Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) code (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., 1996).
5.2.1

Test Input

The input file required for the test is to be developed.

5.2.2 Test Procedure
The test procedure involves the following steps.
Step 1: Execute UDEC
Step 2: Run the input file at the prompt
Step 3: Set up output device for processing postscript graphic files
Step 4: Produce output plots
Step 5: Compare the results with field measurements
5.2.3 Test Results
The cable element in UDEC is expected to exhibit similar force-displacement behavior as that
obtained from the field test. The general trending between the UDEC results and those measured
in the field is expected to be the same. However, the nonlinear force-displacement behavior
observed in the field is not going to be modeled using UDEC although modeling such behavior is
possible using the FISH function provided by the UDEC. The UDEC results are acceptable if the
predicted displacement at which the peak force is reached is within 15% of the field measurements.
This allowance is reasonable because the inherent uncertainties and variability associated with the
rock properties in the field and the uncertainties related to the grout properties are not going to be
considered in the UDEC runs.
5.3

Joint Displacement Induced by Temperature Increase Test

This test involves a heat source in an infinite elastic medium with an inclined transgressing joint.
This heatsourcewill be placed nearthe joint. A Mohr-Coulombfailurecriterion will be usedto model
the joint shear behavior. As temperature increases, the joint is expected to experience joint
displacements or, in some case, joint slip. This test case is intended to validate the thermalmechanical model implemented in UDEC. The UDEC results will be compared with those
produced using the FLAC code (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., 1996). The FLAC code has an
interface model that allows explicit joint modeling, thus, making the direct comparison possible.
Before the performance of the joint shear behavior in heated condition is examined, capability of
UDEC to model thermal-mechanical behavior of a continuous medium will be validated by treating
5

the joint as a glued joint. The UDEC results will be compared with the FLAC code results for the
same model.
5.3.1

Test Input

The input files for both UDEC and FLAC required for the test are to be developed.
5.3.2

Test Procedure

The test procedure involves the following steps.

Step 1: Execute UDEC
Step 2: Run the input file at the prompt
Step 3: Set up output device for processing postscript graphic files
Step 4: Produce output plots
Step 5: Execute FLAC
Step 6: Run the input file at the FLAC prompt
Step 7: Set up output device for processing postscript graphic files for FLAC run
Step 8: Produce FLAC output plots
Step 9: Compare the UDEC results with those from the FLAC run
5.3.3 Test Results
The results for this test case remain to be developed. It is, in general, expected that the portion of
the joint near the heat source will experience more joint slip than other portions of the joint as the
temperature increases. Because that portion of the joint is closer to the source of heat, it will thus
experience highertemperature also. A difference of smallerthan 10% between the predicted results
of UDEC and FLAC should be considered acceptable due to the inherent differences in the
numerical techniques used.
6.0

Notes

None
7.0

References

Brady, B.H., S.H. Hsiung, A.H. Chowdhury, and J. Philip. 1990. Verification studies on the UDEC
computational model of jointed rock. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanics
of Jointed and Faulted Rock. Mechanics of Jointed and Faulted Rock. H.P. Rossmanith, ed.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
6

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 1996. FLAC-FastLagrangianAnalysis of Continua User's Manual.

Version 3.3. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2000. UDEC-Universal Distinct Element Code Online Manual.
Version 3.1. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.